DSP Satellites and Fastwalkers

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
Correct! People need to stop proclaiming that they know exactly the who's, the what's, and the where's of the UFO phenomenon. My belief is that no one
knows who or what they are. The reason the most powerful nation on planet Earth has zero comment on the subject and has for decades gone as far as to
disceminate disinformation on the subject is quite likely because they were able to get a close look that them/it and it scared the s&;+ out of them.

That would be a good reason for non-disclosure. If there were ET's, and the ET's were powerful, secretive and non-cooperative.

Disclosure would inevitably result in public political pressure to "do Something about The Demons" which would surely be catastrophically unwise.

At this point, it would be ET's move to disclose themselves, and if they aren't doing so, leave them alone.

Another stronger possibility would be that ET threatened governments who tracked them against disclosure, and backed it up with demonstrations of
their power and determination. And there was a "Cold War" style understanding of boundaries, but much fear and suspicion.

The much more likely possibility is of course no ETs and you are seeing parts of the intelligence & defense communities trying to understand phenomena
resulting from their own or other government's activities to which they are not cleared to know.

I still think "they" have been here. And will continue to drop in from time to time, but The Who, what, why, where from ect will escape us for
centuries I unfortunately feel.

Technology of a level that seems like magic to us doesn't just crash (sorry, I don't believe in Roswell or that our little hands have ever handled
that kind of tech). And they/it responsible for creating that technology certainly are not going to feel responsible for explaining anything to us.

If any gov't has any kind of data it's just a glance in their peripheral or they stumbled on to it by just dumb luck. An example is the Lago de Cote
photo , in my humble opinion.

Great thread- there is a documentary titled "Fastwalkers" that I thought was very intriguing when I viewed it some years ago. An unnamed
relative of mine (Grandpa) working for an unnamed aerospace company (Boeing) on an unnamed aircraft (AWACS E3A) confirmed that these things exist, but
are of demonic origin and I should avoid them at all costs.

He has provided you with a very wise suggestion. I would recommend that you would give it great thought and consideration.

The Bermuda Triangle extends almost all the way to Florida, off the coast of Miami.

I am a stickler for detail. The Bermuda Triangle intersects inland to Florida, in the Keys, not almost. I was stationed down there, so I know it
pretty well.
There is a big difference between Bermuda, and the Bermuda triangle and I do not think that is what he meant. I think he transposed Bermuda for
Bimini. Further, the exact location of the triangle is very fuzzy, and is not considered an exact line between the keys and Bermuda, and many
researchers even include Key West in the area, as well as east of San Juan , into the carribean. It is all about what he said.

Anyway, not everyone is a stickler for details since they don't always matter. I verily believe you are wrong on the Bimini thing. Although it is due
east of Miami why would he simply not say "north of Bimini", or "north of Bermuda". He wants to give a spot in the ocean and says east of Miami and
north of Bermuda. I agree his directions are awful.

To me it seems he is hurriedly typing and has simply dropped "triangle". Perhaps it's implied and his email to the author has more details. For all
we know the book she is working on could be about the Bermuda Triangle.

However, either way we both come to the same conclusion. The location he is referring to is probably between west end, bs and west palm, fl.

Also, I lived in the Keys for a decade, so I also know it pretty well. So does Wikipedia and this is how all the locals feel as well:

Bermuda Triangle:[1] three vertices, in Miami, Florida peninsula, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and in the mid-Atlantic island of Bermuda.
Subsequent writers did not necessarily follow this definition.

Locals hold that it comes right up to off the coast of Miami. I do notice that it says not all authors hold to those same vertices but in south
Florida we knew the triangle started off the coast of Miami, but apparently it's up for debate.

Anyway, not everyone is a stickler for details since they don't always matter. I verily believe you are wrong on the Bimini thing. Although it is due
east of Miami why would he simply not say "north of Bimini", or "north of Bermuda". He wants to give a spot in the ocean and says east of Miami and
north of Bermuda. I agree his directions are awful.

To me it seems he is hurriedly typing and has simply dropped "triangle". Perhaps it's implied and his email to the author has more details. For all
we know the book she is working on could be about the Bermuda Triangle.

However, either way we both come to the same conclusion. The location he is referring to is probably between west end, bs and west palm, fl.

Also, I lived in the Keys for a decade, so I also know it pretty well. So does Wikipedia and this is how all the locals feel as well:

Bermuda Triangle:[1] three vertices, in Miami, Florida peninsula, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and in the mid-Atlantic island of Bermuda.
Subsequent writers did not necessarily follow this definition.

Locals hold that it comes right up to off the coast of Miami. I do notice that it says not all authors hold to those same vertices but in south
Florida we knew the triangle started off the coast of Miami, but apparently it's up for debate.

I have no idea what the man was referring to and neither do either of you, but my question is: why would he describe a location that is literally 500
nm north of Miami in referencing its easterly coordinates, when it would be much easier to say east of Cape Hatteras just north of Bermuda, if indeed,
he was intentionally pointing out the location as being the Bermuda Triangle, but forgetting to add "Triangle"? He was referencing a base and that
would be one static location that is/was not located in an ambiguous area, when he specifically stated east of Miami; east of Miami just north of the
Bermuda triangle is a subjective description of a location being that the definition of when and where the Bermuda Triangle begins/ends is murky, as
evidenced by the definition you provided and the anecdote Charlyv gave regarding his time there and his definition of where it begins, ends,
extends, etc.

The more plausible case is that of which Charlyv provided. The guy said East of Miami just North of Bermuda in describing a static location, it
stands to reason, the man was describing a very particular spot in the Atlantic that is the home of an active base and using Miami as a reference
point, but describing it as being East suggests that he meant the base was East in the area of Bimini and North in latitude as that of Miami. Many
people know Florida well. As my earlier example, if he were describing a base of a known, static location, Miami seems awfully poor of a choice to
relate it's northerly coordinates if meant North of the Bermuda Triangle. He could of said Cape Hatteras or Kitty Hawk or Norfolk to describe it's
location if were that far north. Instead he said East of Miami (to give you a close approximation of its latitude - its counter-intuitive to some)
and North of Bermuda (Bimini) to give you an idea of it's longitudinal location. East of Miami but North of the Bermuda Triangle gives no one any
real idea of where to begin to look because, how far east should you go before you start navigating North above the Triangle to find a single
location? On the other hand, if he meant what he said by East of Miami but North of Bermuda, then that makes no sense at all. I'll appeal to Occam's
Razor on this one and go with the simplest answer: he described a specific location with finer detail to spot a single, static base by mistakenly
saying "Bermuda", when he meant Bimini, as opposed to the much broader field of search for single base that would be required by leaving out
"Triangle", again while describing a single base.

"East of Miami just North of Bimini" is a place to start a fruitful look for a single base. "East of Miami just North of the Bermuda Triangle" is an
unknown place (per your definition and Charlyv's definition of where it begins, ends, extends, etc.) that could be up for any number of
interpretations and doesn't seem to be a fruitful start to look for anything but open water. I don't imagine logic and deductive reasoning will
change your mind considering the contents of your previous posts regarding the issue, but I would bet a bag of smelly socks to 20 bucks most people
reading this thread and this post, in particular, would follow Ockham's advice and disagree with the unfounded assertion you made (re: he meant
"Triangle") and find the error (if it, indeed, is an error of transcription on his part) to be one, which implies he meant to write/type "Bimini".

Sorry Charlyv, I don't know how to respond to two posters in the same reply, but I hope you are able to read it.

What do you mean how would you know how Far East to go? Draw a straight line from Miami to Bermuda on a globe. There is your boundary. Once you hit
that boundary going east of Miami turn north...

You are both making a much bigger assumption that me, that he wrote the wrong island. That isn't applying Occam's razor at all. That is literally
making things up.

He said Bermuda. Many, many people think of Bermuda Triangle when they hear Bermuda. My assumption requires less assumptions than yours does, so
you've misunderstood Occam's Razor.

In any case, I emailed him (hope that email works) to get clarification.

As far as unfounded statements go, your claim that many people know Florida is not true. Most people in the United States have no idea the Bermuda
Triangle starts at Florida and most of them have no idea Bimini even exists. I would tell people that you could swim to the Bahamas and they would be
so confused not realized it's a stones throw off the coast of Florida.

The area of the Keys and the Bahamas was almost as confusing for my fellow Americans as was when I lived in Hawaii.

I agree with you. Assuming that Bermuda is the Bermuda Triangle is out of the email. East of Miami, in the direction of bermuda but not necessarily
north of Bermuda its the sargassum sea:

It would also be extremely interesting if we could know what is the frequency and modulation.

I have a theory about the "frequency"

They could be using it to communicate with each other, to alert the underwater base that they were coming, eventually. But they could also be using an
electromagnetic frequency to brake thru the water.

Lets say you have a very powerful RF emitter and point it at a localised area, the water would vaporise. That water vapour could work as some sort of
barrier between the ships hull and the surrounding water in the moment of entry. Then if this RF frequency could be made to emanate from around the
ships hull, this vapour bubble could allow the ship to travel thru water as if it was on a gas.

If I´m not mistaken the russians have a torpedo that does just that in ordr to travel below water surface at great speed, 500km/h I think.

Many reports about how these ships become graviticaly neutral say that they use very high voltage potential between the top and the bottom of the sip
and also that they make this field vibrate at some frequency.

I think he is quietly doing an absolutely fantastic job digging out these documents and pointing out the discrepancies between what we are led to
believe various governments are doing, and the seemingly frantic activity behind the scenes...

And he is very thorough. Always with sources and presents his case extremely well.

Just microwave induced plasma experiments, both for aircraft skins and for less reputable purposes could explain much of what's *actually* going on.

Indeed---and optical stealth experiments. Even 'ordinary' rocket launches often are quite spectacular and bizarre to untrained observers. The CIA
used UFO reports in the USSR for this very purpose---discerning covert Soviet launches. And is probably why they started discouraging reporting of
UFO's, recognizing that adversaries could do the same for US activities.

And yes, they would secretly investigate and potentially discourage UFO-reporters because they saw something that they didn't want seen, and something
which an informed intelligence agency could use against them.

And maybe there are some really high-performance craft with unusual properties, and keeping the mystique open is a good strategy: cognitive stealth.
You'd want Omar or Kolya to be somewhat reluctant to launch a SAM at a hovering black triangle if they thought it was ET instead of NATO.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.